President Donald Trump's opponents failed to stop him at the ballot box, so now they are attempting to neutralize his presidency in the courts.
U.S. district court judges have proven more than willing to help out in this regard, slapping the government with more nationwide injunctions in the first 100 days of Trump's second term than were entered throughout the whole of the 20th century.
As of Wednesday, the New York Times indicated that 199 or more of the court rulings against the president's executive actions so far this year have at least temporarily halted the Trump administration's initiatives.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has intervened in a number of cases to reaffirm the president's Article II powers and his exercise thereof, it's abundantly clear that the Trump administration is tiring of what White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has repeatedly called a "judicial coup."
The Department of Justice turned the tables on Wednesday, filing a lawsuit against the U.S. District Court of Maryland and all 16 of its judges — including its 10 authorized judges, all but one of whom were appointed by former Presidents Joe Biden or Barack Obama.
The lawsuit takes aim at an order handed down last month that automatically blocks the deportation of illegal aliens in the state whose detention is challenged by immigration attorneys.
If a petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed on behalf of an illegal alien detainee in or said to be in the District of Maryland, the Trump administration is automatically enjoined and restrained from removing the alien from the country or altering the alien's legal status for at least two days.
The district court's Chief Judge George Russell III, an Obama appointee, claimed that the May 28 amended standing order was necessary because the recent flood of illegal alien detention and removal challenges "that have been filed after normal court hours and on weekends and holidays has created scheduling difficulties and resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings."
Chad Mizelle, DOJ chief of staff, stressed that "this obviously illegal practice cannot stand. To stop it, the Department of Justice has no choice but to sue the Maryland federal district court — and its judges — to ensure that they stop overstepping their authority in this critical area."
Lawyers for the government noted in the lawsuit that the district court's automatic injunction does "precisely what the Supreme Court has forbidden: make equitable relief a 'matter of right' in the District of Maryland."
'This pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand.'
"Defendants' automatic injunction issues whether or not the alien needs or seeks emergency relief, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the alien's claims, and no matter how frivolous the alien's claims may be," said the lawsuit.
RELATED: Will the Supreme Court rein in rogue judges — or rubber-stamp them?
The complaint notes further that the standing orders:
The DOJ characterized the Maryland District Court's automatic injunctions as "a particularly egregious example of judicial overreach interfering with Executive Branch prerogatives — and thus undermining the democratic process."
"President Trump's executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. "The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: this pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Department of Education on Wednesday delivered a long-overdue strike against the activist university system. While headlines focused on Columbia University, the message was broader: Every institution living off federal student loan money now faces pressure from two sides — financial scrutiny and accreditation reform.
As a professor inside the academic machine, I can say this is exactly the disruption higher education needs. If we want universities to educate rather than indoctrinate, this is the pressure point to hit.
The executive order doesn’t just challenge accreditation. It exposes the hypocrisy at the core of modern academia.
One of Donald Trump’s core campaign promises was to overhaul how universities receive accreditation. Most Americans don’t realize it, but accreditation is the golden ticket. Without it, colleges can’t rake in billions from student loans and federal grants. And yet, the organizations in charge of accreditation have turned a blind eye to blatant, systemic discrimination.
They’ve allowed public violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — discrimination under the guise of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Conservative faculty are nearly extinct. In DEI-infused hiring committees, ideology has replaced merit. If the roles were reversed, the left would call this what it is: systemic discrimination.
On April 23, Trump signed an executive order titled “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.” Its aim is simple: to upend the broken accreditation process and hold universities accountable for civil rights violations.
Here’s the language that has the ivory tower in a panic:
The Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall ... investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American law schools that is advanced by the Council, including unlawful "diversity, equity, and inclusion" requirements under the guise of accreditation standards.
Translation: Universities are finally being forced to follow the anti-discrimination laws they pretend to champion.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon followed up by naming Columbia University, noting that the school “looked the other way as Jewish students faced harassment.” That broke Title VI protections. No revocation yet — but the accreditor has been notified. Unless Columbia takes corrective action, its funding could be in jeopardy.
This isn’t just about Columbia. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard unlawfully discriminated with its admissions practices. Elite schools have behaved as if laws don’t apply to them. Now, they’re finding out otherwise.
The rot runs deeper. Across the country, universities have quietly purged conservatives, Christians, and dissenters in favor of radicals, atheists, and left-wing ideologues. Hiring committees dismiss this as "meritocracy" while ensuring no one to the right of Bernie Sanders gets tenure.
RELATED: Kristi Noem’s bombshell letter hits Harvard where it hurts
At Arizona State University, where I teach, we boast a student body that is 70% female — while faculty can’t even define “woman.” That imbalance raises serious questions. Are men now a legally protected group under Title VI? They should be. Universities that brand masculinity as "toxic" while ignoring misandry are engaged in discrimination, plain and simple.
This moment marks a shift. For decades, the university system cloaked itself in moral superiority while wielding tax dollars like a cudgel. But now, the empire is wobbling. Institutions that once policed speech and purity tests may finally have to explain themselves.
The executive order doesn’t just challenge accreditation. It exposes the hypocrisy at the core of modern academia. Universities broke the law. Now they’re being forced to live under it.
And maybe — just maybe — future professors won’t need to hide their beliefs to keep their jobs. That’s the kind of education reform America deserves.
“We will not let what happened in Europe happen in America,” President Trump declared Wednesday, unveiling a new travel ban targeting 12 nations — mostly Islamic-majority countries from the Middle East and Africa.
It’s a strong first step toward fulfilling the original 2015 promise of a full moratorium on immigration from regions plagued by jihadist ideology. But let’s not pretend Europe’s crisis stemmed from poor vetting of criminal records. The real problem was mass migration from cultures openly hostile to Western values — especially toward Jews and, by extension, Christians.
The United States ranks near the bottom of the list for anti-Semitism. That’s something worth protecting — not surrendering to appease lobbyists or foreign governments.
And the new list leaves troubling gaps.
Trump’s call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” was the defining issue that launched his political movement. Nine years later, the rationale is even stronger — and now, the president has the power to make it happen.
Consider the context: Egyptian national Mohamed Sabry Soliman, the alleged Boulder attacker who shouted he wanted to “end all Zionists,” entered the United States in 2022 with a wife and five children — admitted from Kuwait.
The only question that matters: How many more share Soliman’s views?
The numbers are staggering. By my calculation, the U.S. admitted 1,453,940 immigrants from roughly 43 majority-Muslim countries between 2014 and 2023. That figure doesn’t include over 100,000 student visas, nor the thousands who’ve overstayed tourist visas and vanished into the interior.
Soliman is not an outlier. He’s a warning. And warnings demand a response.
Trump’s January executive order called for a 60-day review by the secretary of state, the attorney general, the Homeland Security secretary, and the director of national intelligence to identify countries with inadequate screening procedures. Four and a half months later — following the Boulder attack — the administration announced bans on nationals from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
But Trump didn’t mention anti-American or anti-Jewish sentiment — only logistical concerns like poor criminal record-keeping, high visa overstay rates, and limited government cooperation.
That misses the point entirely.
Jew-hatred — and by extension, hatred of the West — isn't just a byproduct of chaos in failed states like Somalia or Taliban-run Afghanistan. It runs deep across the Middle East, even in countries with functioning governments. In fact, some of the most repressive regimes, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are openly hostile to the Muslim Brotherhood, yet still export radicalized individuals.
And those individuals know precisely where to go: America, where radical Islam finds more tolerance than in many Islamic countries.
Good diplomatic relations don’t mean good immigration policy. Pew’s 2010 global attitudes survey showed over 95% of people in many Middle Eastern countries held unfavorable views of Jews — including those in Egypt and Jordan, U.S. allies.
The Anti-Defamation League’s global index confirms it: The highest levels of support for anti-Semitic stereotypes come from the Middle East. According to the ADL, 93% of Palestinians and upwards of 70% to 80% of residents from other Islamic nations agree with tropes about Jews controlling the world’s wars, banks, and governments.
Meanwhile, the United States ranks near the bottom of the list for anti-Semitism. That’s something worth protecting — not surrendering to appease lobbyists or foreign governments.
So why continue importing hundreds of thousands of people from places where hatred of Jews is considered normal? Why welcome migration from countries like Iraq, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia — where assimilation into American civic values is practically impossible?
The answer may lie in the influence nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia still exert over U.S. foreign policy. But political cowardice is no excuse for policy paralysis.
Twelve countries on the ban list is a good start. But most don’t reflect the true source of radical Islamic immigration into the United States.
RELATED: Mass deportation or bust: Trump’s one shot to get it right
Banning immigration from these regions isn’t about infringing civil liberties. It’s about preventing a civilizational crisis. Unlike Europe, which responded to rising Islamic extremism by criminalizing dissent and speech, America can take the wiser path: protect national security without sacrificing the First Amendment.
We don’t need hate-speech laws. We need sane immigration policy.
Unfortunately, bureaucrats in the administration watered down Trump’s original vision. They framed the bans in terms of “data-sharing” and technocratic concerns. They sought narrow criteria and limited political blowback.
But the law is clear. Trump v. Hawaii affirmed the president’s broad constitutional authority to exclude foreign nationals.
That authority exists for a reason.
President Trump rose to power by sounding the alarm about what unchecked migration could do to the West. That warning was prophetic. And now, he has the mandate — and the obligation — to act on it.
Twelve countries won’t cut it. The question now isn’t whether Trump will act — it’s whether he’ll act in time.
Because if we want to avoid Europe’s fate, we don’t just need a new policy. We need the old Trump — unapologetic, unflinching, and unafraid to speak hard truths.
Let’s hope he finishes what he started.
The Biden years increasingly resemble a desperate effort to avoid invoking the 25th Amendment — no matter the cost.
That’s why the Oversight Project’s autopen investigation has captured the attention of the public, Congress, and, most importantly, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice.
President Trump didn’t hesitate: “THE AUTOPEN IS THE BIGGEST POLITICAL SCANDAL IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!!” he declared on Truth Social. He offered one caveat — the 2020 election still ranks first. I agree, even with my own involvement in uncovering the autopen scandal.
Americans knew something was wrong with Joe Biden. Whether they admitted it or not, nearly everyone sensed it. Some underestimated the severity. Others preferred denial, choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
But beneath that uneasy consensus lay a deeper question: Who was actually running the country?
Our early disclosures from the still-ongoing autopen investigation began to answer that. When we revealed that President Biden wasn’t personally signing documents that require a sitting president’s signature, the public understood the implications immediately.
'Who was president the last four years?' isn’t just a political talking point. It’s a matter of constitutional legitimacy.
This wasn’t just about procedural shortcuts. It revealed a White House operating without a fully functional commander in chief.
The damage done during the Biden years goes far beyond bad policy. His presidency humiliated the United States on the world stage — not just as a geopolitical power, but as a constitutional republic.
We portray ourselves as the world’s most advanced democracy. We’ve even invaded other countries in the name of exporting that model. But what credibility do we have if we refuse to follow the most basic rule written into our own Constitution — namely, that we are governed by a single functioning individual known as the president?
Democrats warned that Donald Trump was an existential threat to democracy. In reality, the greater threat came from an incapacitated president being steered by unelected, unaccountable staffers behind the scenes.
After President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, Congress responded with common sense. Lawmakers recognized the need for a clear constitutional process to handle death or incapacity in the executive branch. This wasn’t theoretical — America had already seen four assassinated presidents in less than a century. The system had failed under Garfield, who lingered for months after being shot, and under Wilson, who suffered a debilitating stroke while in office.
The result was the 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967. It created a legal framework for what to do when a president dies, resigns, is removed, or becomes unable to perform the duties of the office. In the case of incapacity, the process requires the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to send Congress a written declaration stating that the president can no longer discharge the powers and duties of the office.
What the drafters likely didn’t imagine was that the vice president and Cabinet might choose to ignore that duty — out of cowardice, political calculation, or worse.
Why did Vice President Kamala Harris and Biden’s Cabinet spend four years sidestepping the exact constitutional process meant for this scenario? That question demands an answer.
Biden was so isolated that according to credible reports, even the secretary of the treasury couldn’t get access to him. How does a Cabinet secretary accept being blocked from seeing the president without sounding the alarm?
RELATED: The real scandal isn’t Joe Biden’s decline — it’s who hid it from you
The first step to answering those questions is to ask them.
As investigations by Ed Martin, the House, and the Senate ramp up, they must put Kamala Harris and Biden’s Cabinet under oath. Those people need to explain, clearly and publicly, why they refused to invoke the 25th Amendment.
Congress has not only the authority but the duty to demand those answers. Its oversight power reaches its peak when the subject directly informs legislative action. And no legislation ranks higher than a constitutional amendment. If the 25th Amendment failed to prevent a four-year constitutional charade, then it needs to be amended. The drafters can’t be blamed for failing to imagine a real-life “Weekend at Bernie’s.” Sometimes the Constitution needs a second draft.
“Who was president the last four years?” isn’t just a political talking point. It’s a matter of constitutional legitimacy. That question now echoes across the world. It exposes a critical vulnerability in our system — and it demands accountability.
The only path forward involves full transparency. Absent a last-minute confession from those responsible, only the Trump administration, backed by Congress, can deliver that reckoning.
When the federal government functions for years in open defiance of its founding charter, it doesn’t just cause scandal. It destroys trust. And that erosion of trust rests atop an already collapsing foundation — widespread doubts about election integrity, mass illegal immigration encouraged by the state to engineer political and demographic outcomes, and a legal system increasingly unmoored from equal protection, openly experimenting with race- and sex-based favoritism in the name of “equity.”
All of that adds up to a constitutional crisis. And unless we confront it head-on, the result won’t just be distrust. It will be disaster.
A government employee's frustration with President Donald Trump's administration allegedly led him to attempt to betray his country. This revelation follows FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino’s vow to expose deep-state bad actors.
The Department of Justice announced on Thursday that the FBI arrested a Defense Intelligence Agency IT specialist for "attempting to transmit national defense information to an officer or agent of a foreign government."
'This case underscores the persistent risk of insider threats.'
Nathan Vilas Laatsch, a 28-year-old from Alexandria, Virginia, began working for the Defense Department's DIA in 2019. His position within the agency's Insider Threat Division allowed him "Top Secret security clearance," the DOJ stated.
The FBI launched an investigation into Laatsch in March after the bureau received a tip that he had "offered to provide classified information to a friendly foreign government," according to the DOJ's press release, which did not specify the country.
Laatsch appeared to reveal his motivation in an alleged email, writing that he did not "agree or align with the values of this administration" and would be willing to share "completed intelligence products, some unprocessed intelligence, and other assorted classified documentation."
According to the Daily Mail, Laatsch called the Trump administration's actions "extremely disturbing."
"I do not see the trajectory of things changing, and do not think it is appropriate or right to do nothing when I am in this position," he allegedly wrote.
RELATED: 'Deep-state criminals' who leaked classified secrets to the press face DOJ referral: Gabbard
In subsequent communications, Laatsch bragged that it would be difficult for authorities to catch him, the Daily Mail reported.
"It will not be easy for them, for example, to open a case on me without my knowledge since my permissions to see that would need to be changed and I'd notice," he allegedly stated.
The DOJ claimed that Laatsch believed he was interacting with an official with the foreign government when he was actually interacting with an FBI agent.
Laatsch allegedly began transcribing classified information on a notepad, hid it in his clothing to sneak it out of his work, and told the agent that he was prepared to turn over the intel.
"Thereafter, the FBI implemented an operation at a public park in northern Virginia, where Laatsch believed he would deposit the classified information for the foreign government to retrieve. On or about May 1, 2025, FBI surveillance observed Laatsch proceed to the specified location and deposit an item," the DOJ stated.
The FBI obtained Laatsch's alleged thumb drive, which was found to contain "multiple typed documents" marked with "Secret or Top Secret" information.
A message, allegedly from Laatsch, stated that the intel was intended to "decently demonstrate the range of types of products" to which he had access and could provide to the foreign power.
Laatsch allegedly told the FBI agent, who he still believed to be the foreign official, that he was seeking "citizenship for your country" in exchange for the sensitive information because he did not "expect[] things here to improve in the long term," presumably referring to the U.S.
According to the DOJ, he also claimed that he was "not opposed to other compensation." However, he noted that he was not in need of "material compensation."
RELATED: 3 cases the FBI is FINALLY investigating under Trump
Again, on May 29, Laatsch attempted to turn over additional information at a second scheduled drop, the DOJ stated. The FBI arrested Laatsch after obtaining the documents.
Patel reacted to Laatsch's arrest, writing in a post on X, "Today, an IT specialist employed by the Defense Intelligence Agency was arrested for attempting to transmit classified national defense information to a foreign government."
"This case underscores the persistent risk of insider threats. The FBI remains steadfast in protecting our national security and thanks our law enforcement partners for their critical support," Patel added.
Laatsch's first court appearance was slated for Friday.
ABC News reported that Laatsch does not yet have an attorney listed in online court records to speak on his behalf.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'There is a wildly inaccurate caricature of me in the mainstream media. I am not anybody's henchman. I'm not an enforcer,' Bove said.
www.theblaze.com